Calgary eliminates sprawl subsidies for new housing

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Slava

Isn't this charge the same for every new build? Reading this thread and the other news articles, that's the impression I get. Everyone, whether its a new high rise condo downtown, or single family home on the edge of the city is paying this, aren't they?

I guess if you want to consider that a "sprawl subsidy", then sure, you win. If everyone, everywhere is paying the same costs I hardly see how it matters though? It's got less to do with "sprawl" and is more about new builds in general. Maybe I'm missing something here though?

It's a great little piece of double-speak.

The city wants to increase revenues and decrease growth.

So they added taxes to development, and created a subsidy for development in the areas they like. The old 'subsidy' was notional in that the growth they didn't like wasn't taxed heavily enough for their tastes and the development they do like had no cost advantage. So a new tax and an actual subsidy solves both, but 'ending sprawl subsidy' makes for a way better headline.

It's sort of like Notleys 'revenue neutral' carbon tax. Fun with words.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

It's a great little piece of double-speak.

The city wants to increase revenues and decrease growth.

So they added taxes to development, and created a subsidy for development in the areas they like. The old 'subsidy' was notional in that the growth they didn't like wasn't taxed heavily enough for their tastes and the development they do like had no cost advantage. So a new tax and an actual subsidy solves both, but 'ending sprawl subsidy' makes for a way better headline.

It's sort of like Notleys 'revenue neutral' carbon tax. Fun with words.

Pretty much bang on. I would thank this a million times if I could because its exactly what is taking place.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Muta

About time. As a late sipper myself (and the inventor of the term yop gobbler),

It took under 4 seconds to figure this out.

On October 21, 2013 Muta posts this:

Originally Posted by Muta

... I think a term for suburbanites should be Yop Sippers. That drink is too appropriately symbolic for the suburban, 2.5 children, white picket fence pandemic that is currently taking place.

About an hour later MMF posts this:

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Yop sippers is good but no one sips a Yop.

Yop-Gobblers?

Sorry. The server's running painfully slow again, and the link has already been posted.

[Coach]

Ugh, who gives a flying banana hammock?

[peter12]

Take it easy, detectives.

[Moderator]

We don't really care who came up with the terms. Please keep this thread on topic. Thanks.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm gonna guess the answer here, but now that these are being covered, does that mean my water and sewage bills are going to go down?

It will almost certainly lower the amount of future increases.

Rates are going up currently largely to atone for the sins of the past (i.e. Charging nothing to development between 2000-2010).

[Fuzz]

Stupid past sinners.

[temple5]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

It's a great little piece of double-speak.

The city wants to increase revenues and decrease growth.

So they added taxes to development, and created a subsidy for development in the areas they like. The old 'subsidy' was notional in that the growth they didn't like wasn't taxed heavily enough for their tastes and the development they do like had no cost advantage. So a new tax and an actual subsidy solves both, but 'ending sprawl subsidy' makes for a way better headline.

It's sort of like Notleys 'revenue neutral' carbon tax. Fun with words.

By "areas of the city they like" do you mean areas which are already served by the needed city services where the costs to the city are nominal but where the added revenues to the city is substantial?

None of the built suburbs add substantial revenue on a flat cost basis like developments in already developed areas which is why the subsidy for these areas was strange in the first place.

There are alot of things out of whack with encouraging inner city development. How like a 500k condo pays the same property tax as a 500K sfh yet the condo costs the city considerably less to service

[Ozy_Flame]

lol this thread is hilarious